“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

Heller established that the Second Amendment can be interpreted to mean a right to self-defense.

The ruling has been closely defended by gun rights groups even going so far as blocking President Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who coincidentally wrote the favored Heller opinion, out of fear his pick would be a dissenting vote.

Ginsburg, known as a champion of women’s rights issues, wrote a dissenting opinion on the Heller case and has maintained those beliefs.

“If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new,” she said in a 2013 interview. “It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.”

In defining the Second Amendment, she said: “The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia … Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”

The free speech part was probably only necessary in the beginning too. Along with all the others that have been ratified. What do we need them for now anyhow? My answer…to protect us from people like you Ginsburg, who would strip us of all rights if you felt so inclined to and as the mob willed it to be so.

Not sure how someone can be so twisted about the meaning of simple words then try in guess/twist those very words to mean something else and guess at the founders meaning. Just Wow.

Howard Montjoy

I’m still trying to figure out how they came up with a woman’s right to kill her kids. lol

Runefyre

It’s no different than the right of a black to kill a white.

b4k9zp

very true. NEITHER exists in the Constituiton. Just as the “right” of two male homosexuals to marry each other or two female homosexuals to marry each other never has existed anywhere in the Constitjution.

Only in future cases. In this case as a dissenting opinion is does not.

Mike in Illinois

Even then, SCOTUS does not make it a habit to establish a precedent, especially the “infancy” that Heller declared itself to be, and then turn around with a 180 just a few years later. Yes, it has happened a couple times in our nation’s history, but then, when it has happened it was outright idiocy in the first place.

The outright idiocy here is Ginsburg and her “right to serve in the military” attitude that gun banners long tried to claim was the case. Indeed, it was that idiocy that Heller put to rest. Heller has as much chance of being destroyed by a future opinion as the Second Amendment has of being repealed.

And that is why the media has for these last 8 years tried to hide Heller as if it didn’t even happen. Notice how quick the abortionist Democrats are to cite Roe, but yet in the gun control ( the infringement) debate, they do not ever play cite the court case game? That is because not even SCOTUS precedent set is on their side anymore.

From the militia right to serve int he military argument, to the interest balancing approach (crime and safety) to even the collective nature of the right, every argument the grabbers long relied on was demolished in Heller. What they also long held on to was then demolished with McDonald (that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to state governments, essentially that gun control was a unlimited state government power as some kind of tenth amendment issue. But the biggest balloon popped by Heller and its brother McDonald is that “guns” and “because guns” and “guns = bad” cannot be a 4th amendment matter of property leading to all legislative and judicial responses and actions being held only to the “reasonable” standard. You know, reasonable as it pertains to Searches and Seizures. The fact is, that is the “in” the grabbers have for so long relied upon – use media to define what is “reasonable” and bingo – anything goes, all bans and mandates are permissible.

That is why people like Ginsburg and Chuckie Shuuuuuumer despise Heller and McDonald so much. It ties their hands and removes their mainstay arguments held their entire lives. Indeed, it renders their opinion on the matter, in fact, wrong as the day is long.

It is almost 8 years now, and Ginsburg is still butthurt over it. So too are people like Bloomberg and even Obama, Holder too. They know full well that their gun conrolling ways are over – and the case from Mass recently demonstrated it perfectly. Now, the court has to choose – it must choose to try to retain its ability to SET precedent, or it can choose to shuffle through gun control some more. In that case, it was unanimous. Even Ginsburg decided to vote for the court’s power, rather than risk that by ushering through endless gun control. I bet that vote kept her up at night……and that is a real accomplishment seeing as she falls asleep during court!

Even before “heller”, nearly every argument the party of slavery and the KKK advanced about gun control was demolished in the 8-0 (unanimous) decision in United States Vs. MIller (1939)., and United States Vs. Cruikshank (1875),

Cruikshank stated clearly that the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of the Constitution, or of the Second Amendment, for as a right, it existed before either the Constitution or the Second amendmwent was ratified.

The Miller case clearly stated that possession of any weapon that was of use to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated miltiia (which the court said was made up of individuals possessing their own weapons of the kinds in common use at the time) was protected by the language of he second amendment. And by hearing the case, the court in Miller clearly showed that the issue of one being in the militia or the military was not a requirement for any individual to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Mike in Illinois

But see, mate, that is where this country went so wrong. Her opinion isn’t what matters, what the Constitution SAYS is what matters. She can disagree with it all she wants to, but that disagreement has to be limited to seeking outright Amendment, and last I checked, the judiciary is not empowered to unilaterally amend it.

Judicial review is something we need to ummmm “re-view”. 😉

mate556

Agreed. If they want this, they should propose an Amendment rather than try to rewrite history and say what is rather clearly said, means something that it doesn’t mean.

Mike in Illinois

That is exactly it mate. Exactly it.

But then, that would be the Honest way to go about it.

mate556

Yep, exactly. The only collective right in a Bill of Rights that explained individual rights. Genius.

If only the founding fathers wrote their thoughts down and gave an overall idea of their opinion on guns and the 2nd Amendment. Oh wait, they did, a lot.

Just say it is your opinion. You think we have moved past the use of firearms, despite the prevailing evidence to the contrary and that no one deserves to defend themselves with a firearm. Just say it, it is easy.

Mike in Illinois

If she did just admit it openly, she would be exposed plainly as being one of those who supported the redcoats version of things back them, and she would have been the first to say no fight was required at Lexington and Concord, but that all we needed do was have those fellas turn over all their arms for safe keeping….

In an interview with an Egyptian TV station, she stated that the first requirement of their new constitution should be
that it “safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First
Amendment”. Apparently, the right to speak freely (among other things in the First Amendment) isn’t as important as the right to protect your life, the right of self-defense.

OJS

Letting senile old ladies control our country’s Constitution is a much worse decision!

AndrusskenN

That oath to protect the Constitution doesn’t mean much too liberals. But then again, they have no morals or ethics, so lying is common nature.

Ms. Ginsberg, like sotomayor and kegan (sp?) believe that her opinion of the 2nd amendment overrides what the Constitution has always said. She has committed perjury, violating her oath to support the Constitution as the supreme law of the land in the Heller and McDonald cases. She should be impeached and convicted and removed from public office.

Count_Iblis

Evil witch

Chuck Yeager

It’s almost as if these people are asking for an armed revolt.

Mike Coggins

Old, senile and a Democrat. I bet she can’t even put her depends on correctly with out help.

When are these fools going to be required to pass a yearly competency test so we can tell when they start losing their minds vs just full of DEMOCRATIC bull crap.

I think it needs to be addressed about this judge for life crap. I understand the reason it was put into place. But with people living longer and increased mental effects on the elderly we need to insure that these people are not bat crap crazy vs just DEMOCRAT crazy

Brendan Jones

I suppose all the other “rights” are outdated too!

Mike in Illinois

Miss Ginsburg, I stand ready to defend this nation today…..from people just like you.
And that right there demonstrates why the individual right to keep and bear arms is every bit as important today, if not more so, as was so long ago.

Ya dig?

USMC 8th and I

Someone please send her a copy of our Constitution………..
Apparently, she skipped that…..

ninjacut

The checks and balances are going to fail Americans, as courts are getting liberal, media and bureaucrats taking people for a ride and we have very bad options for our next president. Its good bye rights and here comes armed civil uprising

Ado Christian

The founding fathers did not write the 2nd Amendment because the deer population was an eminent threat, or a clear and present danger.

David

Here is something Thomas Jefferson said that many may not be aware of.

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)

Kenneth G Maiden

Agenda, its all about agenda. Facts, truth, real history just gets in the way. What a HACK.

David MacGillis

Her gears are stripped and she needs to go into an assisted living facility.

Dingus McGhee

Supreme Court Justices should be elected and held to terms not appointed by the President. You get 12-16 years of liberals appointing justices and we no longer would have any rights. The Constitution would be only a memory.

b4k9zp

even six to eight years could be enough to change the balance forever.

armedcitizen

Wherever it says “right of the people” in the US Constitution it is construed as a birthright that can never be amended or taken away. Put that in your pipe Madam Ginsburg and smoke it! Like it or not the rights of the people will stand forever because they are birthrights give to us by our Creator!

smartacus

She will be crushed and crestfallen when global leftism finally begins to be dismantled

RamRoddoc

If one pained themselves to read the dissenting judge’s use of mental gymnastics combined with circular logic to conclude contained within the people’s bill of rights, that the 2nd Amendment was intended to a be a State’s right to create an Army loyal to the state and not an individual right.

It speaks volumes of the educated idiot who surmises as much.

SoCalCop

I have a feeling that Ginsberg thought the American Revolution was a bad idea as well.